Echo vs Starlette

Overview

Echo

Stacks346

Followers187

Votes59

GitHub Stars31.8K

Forks2.3K

Starlette

Stacks44

Followers21

Votes0

Echo vs Starlette: What are the differences?

## Key Differences between Echo and Starlette

<Write Introduction here>

1. **Performance**: Echo is known for its high performance due to its minimalistic design and fast routing capabilities. On the other hand, Starlette is built with an asynchronous core, making it highly performant, especially for handling high concurrency and heavy I/O workloads.

2. **Middleware Support**: Echo provides middleware support to handle cross-cutting concerns such as logging, authentication, and error handling seamlessly. In contrast, Starlette offers a simpler middleware system that allows developers to plug in additional functionality easily.

3. **Template Engine Integration**: Echo does not come with in-built support for template engines, requiring developers to use third-party libraries or solutions. Conversely, Starlette provides integration with popular template engines like Jinja2, making it easier to create dynamic web pages directly within the framework.

4. **WebSocket Support**: Echo lacks built-in support for WebSockets, although it can be integrated with third-party solutions to enable WebSocket functionality. Starlette, on the other hand, includes native support for WebSocket protocols, making it a preferred choice for real-time applications.

5. **Async Support**: Echo primarily focuses on synchronous operations, limiting its support for handling asynchronous tasks efficiently. In contrast, Starlette is designed with an asynchronous core, providing native support for async and await patterns, making it suitable for async I/O operations.

6. **Community and Ecosystem**: Echo has a smaller community compared to Starlette, resulting in fewer third-party integrations, extensions, and resources available. Starlette, being a part of the broader FastAPI ecosystem, benefits from a more extensive community, which translates to better support, documentation, and integrations.

In Summary, the key differences between Echo and Starlette lie in their performance capabilities, middleware support, template engine integration, WebSocket functionality, asynchronous support, and community ecosystem.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

Echo	Starlette
It is a high performance, extensible, minimalist web framework for Go (Golang).	It is a lightweight ASGI framework/toolkit, which is ideal for building high performance asyncio services.
Optimized HTTP router which smartly prioritize routes; Build robust and scalable RESTful APIs; Run with standard HTTP server or FastHTTP server; Group APIs; Extensible middleware framework; Define middleware at root, group or route level; Data binding for JSON, XML and form payload; Handy functions to send variety of HTTP responses; Centralized HTTP error handling; Template rendering with any template engine; Define your format for the logger; Highly customizable	Seriously impressive performance; WebSocket support; GraphQL support; In-process background tasks; Startup and shutdown events; Test client built on requests; CORS, GZip, Static Files, Streaming responses; Session and Cookie support
Statistics
GitHub Stars 31.8K	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 2.3K	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 346	Stacks 44
Followers 187	Followers 21
Votes 59	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 11 Easy to use 10 Performance 10 Highly customizable 9 Lightweight 9 Open source	No community feedback yet
Integrations
Golang	GraphQL

What are some alternatives to Echo, Starlette?

ExpressJS

Express is a minimal and flexible node.js web application framework, providing a robust set of features for building single and multi-page, and hybrid web applications.

Django REST framework

It is a powerful and flexible toolkit that makes it easy to build Web APIs.

Sails.js

Sails is designed to mimic the MVC pattern of frameworks like Ruby on Rails, but with support for the requirements of modern apps: data-driven APIs with scalable, service-oriented architecture.

Sinatra

Sinatra is a DSL for quickly creating web applications in Ruby with minimal effort.

Lumen

Laravel Lumen is a stunningly fast PHP micro-framework for building web applications with expressive, elegant syntax. We believe development must be an enjoyable, creative experience to be truly fulfilling. Lumen attempts to take the pain out of development by easing common tasks used in the majority of web projects, such as routing, database abstraction, queueing, and caching.

Slim

Slim is easy to use for both beginners and professionals. Slim favors cleanliness over terseness and common cases over edge cases. Its interface is simple, intuitive, and extensively documented — both online and in the code itself.

Fastify

Fastify is a web framework highly focused on speed and low overhead. It is inspired from Hapi and Express and as far as we know, it is one of the fastest web frameworks in town. Use Fastify can increase your throughput up to 100%.

Falcon

Falcon is a minimalist WSGI library for building speedy web APIs and app backends. We like to think of Falcon as the Dieter Rams of web frameworks.

hapi

hapi is a simple to use configuration-centric framework with built-in support for input validation, caching, authentication, and other essential facilities for building web applications and services.

TypeORM

It supports both Active Record and Data Mapper patterns, unlike all other JavaScript ORMs currently in existence, which means you can write high quality, loosely coupled, scalable, maintainable applications the most productive way.

Related Comparisons

Echo vs Starlette: What are the differences?

## Key Differences between Echo and Starlette

<Write Introduction here>

1. **Performance**: Echo is known for its high performance due to its minimalistic design and fast routing capabilities. On the other hand, Starlette is built with an asynchronous core, making it highly performant, especially for handling high concurrency and heavy I/O workloads.

2. **Middleware Support**: Echo provides middleware support to handle cross-cutting concerns such as logging, authentication, and error handling seamlessly. In contrast, Starlette offers a simpler middleware system that allows developers to plug in additional functionality easily.

3. **Template Engine Integration**: Echo does not come with in-built support for template engines, requiring developers to use third-party libraries or solutions. Conversely, Starlette provides integration with popular template engines like Jinja2, making it easier to create dynamic web pages directly within the framework.

4. **WebSocket Support**: Echo lacks built-in support for WebSockets, although it can be integrated with third-party solutions to enable WebSocket functionality. Starlette, on the other hand, includes native support for WebSocket protocols, making it a preferred choice for real-time applications.

5. **Async Support**: Echo primarily focuses on synchronous operations, limiting its support for handling asynchronous tasks efficiently. In contrast, Starlette is designed with an asynchronous core, providing native support for async and await patterns, making it suitable for async I/O operations.

6. **Community and Ecosystem**: Echo has a smaller community compared to Starlette, resulting in fewer third-party integrations, extensions, and resources available. Starlette, being a part of the broader FastAPI ecosystem, benefits from a more extensive community, which translates to better support, documentation, and integrations.

Echo vs Starlette

Overview